Transmission1

Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 26 Oct 2018, 14:31

by fmdx

Having a wee scan the now and can hear a DMR user on 455.8375 CC1 S1
Due to where i am the now i cant normally hear the glasgow twr re-tx on the same frequency- is this still analogue?
Using a vertical 1/4 with rf gain of 40dB+ and can just pull in the DMR user some audio unreadable but said something about leaving a site and call him if any problems-didnt sound like the airport? any ideas airband listeners

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 26 Oct 2018, 18:28

by Metradio

Using WTR Browser, there is another user on the same frequency just to the East of Glasgow..

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Or if you don't use farceblog and have a few seconds to use the Ofcom website you'll find that licence 1130542 belongs to Dogs Trust on Hamilton Road

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 27 Oct 2018, 14:48

by Metradio

Woof !

Mike

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 27 Oct 2018, 17:33

by thelad

Why did Mike not just post the user? Are we not here to help each other ? Or are you just here to make some £££

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 27 Oct 2018, 18:43

by Metradio

Was I being unhelpful ?

Mike

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 29 Oct 2018, 06:02

by thelad

Sounds like you are just trying to make some £££, seem to be pushing the "WTR browser" on to everyone, i asume you are part of it.

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 03 Nov 2018, 15:24

by fmdx

Hi i already have WTR browser so no need for any sales pitch lol

Didnt think the powers that be would allow another user on the same frequency as the airport even tho it is not a direct channel as such.

Re: Glasgow tower uhf Rebroadcast

Posted: 03 Nov 2018, 17:17

by Metradio

NATS only hold standard technicaly assigned licences for their airport UHF rebroadcast frequencies, so have no more protection than a small cab firm from interference. If they had taken out area defined frequencies things would be different - but that would have been expensive